U.S. Senate approved--51 to 49--drilling for oil in that section of the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge set aside for development when ANWR was created.

About time.

Three Democrats voted yea.

Only way to stop it now is for the entire budget bill to be defeated. Estimated production of one million barrels a day will provide 5% of current U.S. needs. At that rate, the known reserves in ANWR will be producing for 28.5 years. The Alaskan pipeline is running at about 50% capacity and can handle the added oil easily.

Articles on the vote:

Senate votes to open oil drilling in Alaska(AP via The Guardian) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4870463,00.html)

Teamsters Hail Bipartisan Senate Vote Supporting ANWR Oil and Gas ... (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050316/dcw056_3.html)

Teamsters represent many of the workers in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the lower 48 who will built the equipment needed to develop and maintain the fields. Jobs in Alaska are a small part of the reason for union support.

Yeah, fuck the Earth! After all, our Ford Excretions are more important than future generations.

Huh? If anything this will help the environnment. Wildlife herds have more than doubled since Prudhoe bay, right next to ANWR, was developed.

Demand in China, India and elsewhere means oil will be extracted from some place. Better it is done in the USA with our technology and our controls rather than in Russia, Africa, the Gulf and Indonesia where pollution controls, which ones exist at all, are far looser?

While rank and file environmentalists may not know, the leadership of the groups which opposed drilling in ANWR know the environment was cover for other agendas.

Charles Schumer who has been filibustering the issue is tight with the Russian oligarchs. He and the AJCongress petitioned Bush to import more oil from Russia. Then Schumer attended the opening of the first Russian gas station in America and declared Russian oil a "win-win" for the consumer.

Schumer's buddy Mikhail Khodorkovsky,the former CEO of Yukos, which owned that gas station is now in prison awaiting trial for stealing billions from the Russian people.

Anyone doubt if the books of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups were opened up some names from Russian and Gulf States would surface? Anyone doubt crooks such as Marc Rich have an interest in seeing America produces the least oil possible?

Help..the...environment...?

I guess you forgot about the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Wildlife has still not recovered from that. Why do you think wildlife herds (herds of what?) have doubled after development? Are they setting out bales of hay for the Caribou? Caribou avoid the pipelines by 3-4 miles. The pipelines leak, there are minor spills there every day.

So, since China, India, etc.. need oil, it's better that we destroy our own protected areas instead? I don't buy that argument, Those countries have nothing like ANWR, and besides, the motive for this isn't altruistic, it's profit. Let those countries do what they want.

I don't buy your bullshit about environmentalists, either. Attacking the character of one Democrat is the modus operandi of the Bush crime family. Environmental groups that oppose drilling in ANWR do so because they care about the unspoiled wilderness. Every scientist not employed by the oil industry agrees that development there will be a detriment to the wilderness, like it has been along 90% of the Alaskan coastline that IS open to drilling. The oil produced there would be minimal anyway. One thing I do know is that the Bush administration and the oil industry are one and the same.

Why don't we invest in oil alternatives? I can tell you, because there's no money in it for the oil industry, and they ARE now the government.

"What we have here is a unique place in the world. It is a wilderness ecosystem, it's functioning in its natural way as it has for millennia. It has the most important on-shore denning area for polar bears. It has this tremendous aggregation of caribou that have their young there, raise their young there, and it has tundra swans that come from as far as Chesapeake Bay, all in this narrow, diverse area with the spectacular Brooks Range behind it. And to say that you can have an industrial complex in the biological heart of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and maintain for our children this unique refuge is just not true.

There will be the miles of roads and pipelines that the secretary has described. There have been declines in the caribou herd at Prudhoe Bay. There is disturbance of the roads and the pipelines seen by the caribou, and you simply cannot impose this kind of a complex. I've worked on the wildlife refuge as a biologist, and I've spent a lot of time in Prudhoe Bay, and I've seen for myself what you have in the oil fields and in the spectacular wilderness. "
Pam Miller of the Wilderness Society, over proposed oil drilling in an Alaskan Refuge

The only true environmentalists run around naked in the woods eating grass, berries, tree roots and dead animals.

One of the greatest myths concerning caribou is that oil development has
caused an increase in the Central Arctic herd’s numbers. Before development,
the herd contained about 5,000 animals.1,5 Today it numbers around
27,000. This increase is largely attributable to several years with mild weather
and has nothing to do with development. In truth, the Central Arctic herd’s
calving activity has shifted away from developed areas to alternative
calving grounds with poorer quality habitat.

6. Dau, J.R., and R.D. Cameron. 1986. Effects of a road system on caribou distribution during calving. Rangifer,
Special Issue No. 1:95-101.
7. Cameron, R.D., D.J. Reed, J.R. Dau, and W.T. Smith. 1992. Redistribution of calving caribou in response to oil field
development on the arctic slope of Alaska. Arctic. 45:338-342.
8. Smith, W.T., R.D. Cameron, and D.J. Reed. 1994. Distribution and movements of caribou in relation to roads and
pipelines, Kuparuk Development Area, 1978-1990. ADF&G, Wildl. Tech. Bull. 12. 54pp.
9. Nelleman, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1996. Terrain preferences of calving caribou exposed to petroleum development.
Arctic 49:23-28.
10. Nellemann, C., and R.D. Cameron. 1998. Cumulative impacts of an evolving oilfield complex on calving caribou.
Can. J. Zool. 76:1425-1430.
11. Wolfe, S.A. 2000. Habitat selection by calving caribou of the Central Arctic Herd, 1980-95. M.S. Thesis, University of
Alaska Fairbanks, AK. 83 pp.

Gaia is one. The earth is a unitary whole. Pollution in Russia affects the entire organism. Gaia weeps when oil is spilled and not cleaned up in Africa and the Gulf States.

Much better for Gaia if Americans drill on American land with American technology and American pollution controls than for Russians and Africans to produce oil for us with Gawd knows what controls (if any).

And yes, there is rot in the environazi movement. There is Big Money there and Big Payoffs to stop America from developing its own resources.

The left could care less about the environment. When they aren't blocking drilling because of payoffs from foreign interests they are blocking it in the deluded view the world will be better off if economies are equalized by coercion and the American standard of living reduced.

Democratic Congresscritter Ed Markey is most upset (http://www.nationalreview.com/beltway/058434.html)with today's vote:

“The American people believe there should be some places on this earth left the way the Almighty made them in the first place. When we finally meet our Maker, we are not going to be asked our position on evolution or the Big Bang. We are going to be asked about what we did to protect the resources we were given. The Congress still has time to pull back from this folly, and we must do everything we can to see that it does.”

Whatever happened to separation of Church and State? Is Markey trying to create a theocracy in America?


When liberals start talking about God and "our Maker" I get chills.

It could be a sign. A sign of the final days.

You can buy a hell of a lot of studies "proving" drilling is ANWR is bad with the type of money Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Marc Rich, George Soros and other special interests have to throw around, spidergoat.

How come we rarely see studies showing drilling in Russia, the Gulf States and Africa is bad for the environment?

Why is it always the USA?

We do have the best, cleanest technology in the world and very tight controls. When American companies do make a mess , they clean it up.

How come your experts, spidergoat, aren't that concerned about the mess in Baku, Nigeria or Angola?

When American companies do make a mess , they clean it up.

Most often only after they are dragged into court to force the issue.

Oil industry estimates say 10 billion barrels are available, the U.S. government has estimated less than 5 billion barrels. According to the US Department of Energy, we used 7.2 billion barrels of oil in 2000, (19.7 million barrels of petroleum/day x 365 days/year => 7190 million) and we know consumption has increased since. A year or so after they begin pumping, we'll be back where we started. This does not even take into account the intervening years that will be required to create the infrastructure necessary to extract the oil. What will our consumption levels be then?

Why is drilling a better option than decreasing usage by, say, 5%?

:m: Peace.

Gaia is one. The earth is a unitary whole. Pollution in Russia affects the entire organism. Gaia weeps when oil is spilled and not cleaned up in Africa and the Gulf States.
So, your motivations for supporting the exploration in ANWR are environmental?
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.
Anyway, we can't control what they do in Russia, they will probably drill there no matter what the United States does.
Oil exploration is bad for the environment wherever it happens. The fact is there is no shortage of oil, and what they find in Alaska is destined to be sold to Japan, NOT decrease our dependance on foriegn oil. I'm all for independence from foriegn oil, but I don't think the answer is to plow on finding more fossil fuels, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. Why don't they look in New Jersey? Much more could be done with regulating the effeciency of automobiles, and other sources of consumption.

Whatever happened to separation of Church and State? Is Markey trying to create a theocracy in America?
Democrats and Republicans are free to express themselves with regard to religion. Separation of Church and State refers to the state instituting policies that promote religion. I know you are trying to be funny, because it's the Republicons that are actively eroding the church-state separation.

How come your experts, spidergoat, aren't that concerned about the mess in Baku, Nigeria or Angola?

Because our laws don't affect those areas. It is an environmental concern, though, as much as anywhere else.

The economy is growing at 4% a year. Americans would have to decreases consumption by that just to stay where we are. To make up what you want us not to get from ANWR and to fuel current growth , we would have to conserve far more than 5%. But we can't without tanking the economy and killing growth.

We don't get all our supply from Texas either. So should we shut down production in Texas and conserve the energy Texas produces instead?

Makes no sense not to extract oil sitting under a barren wasteland.

The figures are estimated reserves. The history of that is they are always on the low side.

But even if they aren't so what? Why not conserve what we can and produce what we can? And why send $50 million plus out of America? If reserves are only 10 billion barrels, why spend $50 billion plus to foreign countries?

Oil won't matter at all if global warming causes widespread drought. Warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels. A major source of water for China India and Nepal, the Himalayan glaciers, are receding fast.

Oil isn't a renewable resource. It's like an addiction. Of course, without it, the way of life we have become used to would be impossible, but we have to start planning for change; joining a twelve step program, not finding a better dealer.

ANWAR drilling will take 10 years from start date to even show results, and even then, the oil won't even last a full year at 1mbd output, which is the max additional oil the Alaskan Pipeline is capable of delivering.

Even if the politics come through, that speaks nothing of the geology.

Big Oil not interested in drilling in ANWAR (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/politics/21refuge.html?ei=5088&en=011827559528ad9f&ex=1266728400%22%02ner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position=)

ANWAR isn't going to lower oil prices today. It's important to understand that. Assuming all goes well, It will hedge fuel prices in the future, for 6-8 months of duration.

The problem is that global oil production has peaked and is set to go into terminal decline, and there's really little we can do about it other than stall for time.

The Long Fingers of Petroleum (http://www.energybulletin.net/4740.html?PHPSESSID=4514047eb46caf663b02ae8a62917e 15)

I'm just curious, of course, but ......

What the hell good are all of those animals up there to anyone? Please ....I am being very, very serious. Most people will never, ever go up there to see those animals or the land, most won't even watch tv about it. The best that anyone might, just MIGHT do is go see them at a zoo.

Please tell me ....what the hell good are those animals in the ANWR?

Baron Max

Good question, Baron Max. I wonder the same thing every day about the people living in the southern red states too. Let's just both get rid of em and the Alaskan wildlife. Life ain't precious, I guess.

- N

Life ain't precious, I guess.

Well, sure it is. But as a generalization, that statement means virtually nothing ...and certainly nothing on a philosophical forum like this one.

"Life is precious" ...but if you've ever killed a cockroach or a mosquito or eaten beef, chicken or pork, then the term is strictly relative and to make it as a blanket statement is non-sense.

As to getting rid of the rednecks in the south ...are you going to let the rednecks in the north or west or east get of scot-free? ;=)

So, I'll ask again ....What good are those animals in the ANWR? And if you'd like, you can include why they're good for YOU.

Baron Max

It's not just the animals, it's the whole ecosystem. It's beautiful. That's enough of a reason. When you are all done raping the Earth for fuel, we will all wake up and look around, and see that we have made the Earth into a place that's not worth living in. The oil won't last, but the ecosystem up there was millions of years in the making, and when it's gone it's gone FOREVER.

What's the use of oil, I could ask? To drive us to work, to make money, to afford a car, to buy more products, all for what? So you can retire, and drive around in an RV...to see what?

Oh...that's right, the beauty of this great land, which will be gone if the oil barons have their way- except for tiny, pathetic, disneyfied patches of tamed symbolic wilderness surrounded by gas stations and tacky souvenier shops.

What's the use of Mozart, or Michaelangelo, or Jimi Hendrix? The best things in life have no use.

Oh, yes, the ANWR is lovely, beautiful. But then ...would you happen to know just how many vacation visitors went to ANWR in the last year or so? ..or even the last 50 years?

I see it all, like many things, as a balance between issues ...not just one single issue. Addressing the issue of ANWR, without including the issues of the reality of the need for fuel, is just farting into the wind.

So now ....What good is ANWR if no one ever goes there to see it?

Baron Max

U.S. Senate approved--51 to 49--drilling for oil in that section of the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge set aside for development when ANWR was created.
WOOHOO!!!!!

About time.
...we fuck the earth's slowly dying corpse for profit.

Three Democrats voted yea.
How many republicans voted nay?

Estimated production of one million barrels a day will provide 5% of current U.S. needs.
Wow!!! 5% of our needs!!! But wait... where is this oil going? Not just America! It isn't going to affect our oil prices - ever. That's just naive. It is going to be put on the world market and bought and sold wherever is is needed. Not to mention, that much oil could be saved today (not ten years from now) if we simply had stricter regulations on fuel efficiency in cars. But what the hell, I like getting 10 mpg and emptying my wallet to oil companies everytime I want to travel.

This is one of the most moronic descisions ever.

At that rate, the known reserves in ANWR will be producing for 28.5 years.
As an alternative, we invest the next 30 years in wind, solar, and hydrogen power technology, not destroy the environment, and have ample sources of renewable resources for generations to come.

Nah.... idealism never gets ya anywhere.... and besides, that would give people a lot more control over their power sources instead of relying on oil companies to provide their fix for them.

The Alaskan pipeline is running at about 50% capacity and can handle the added oil easily.
That makes it a-ok!

Teamsters represent many of the workers in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the lower 48 who will built the equipment needed to develop and maintain the fields. Jobs in Alaska are a small part of the reason for union support.
Jobs over planetary health, always. It's the economy, stupid!

When are people going to wake up and realize there is no economy?

So, I'll ask again ....What good are those animals in the ANWR? And if you'd like, you can include why they're good for YOU.
So now ....What good is ANWR if no one ever goes there to see it?
Because one day, you might be walking along in the ANWR and get eaten by a bear; a bear that wouldn't exist if we destroy the environment there.

Makes no sense not to extract oil sitting under a barren wasteland.
And there we have the heart of it. You pay lip service to the notion of environmental protection with your cynical embrace of Gaia, but your true thoughts emerge in your characterisation of a complex and unique ecosystem as a barren wasteland.

I can imagine 5 or 10 years in the future when someone discovers a cheap clean and plentiful source of energy, and we'll feel like complete fools because the Earth will be in sad shape, and it'll still continue to warm up due to the heat inertia of the oceans. We will look back and realize that it could have been discovered much sooner had we only invested a fraction of the amount we spent on oil in research.

I can imagine 5 or 10 years in the future when someone discovers a cheap clean and plentiful source of energy, ....

Well, you do have a great imagination. Have you considered becoming a science fiction writer?

Baron Max

Huh? If anything this will help the environnment. Wildlife herds have more than doubled since Prudhoe bay, right next to ANWR, was developed.huh? where do you get this info? the oil lobby?

While rank and file environmentalists may not know, the leadership of the groups which opposed drilling in ANWR know the environment was cover for other agendas.
& your agenda would be? say are you related to Jeff Gannon from Talon?
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Jeff_Gannon
Charles Schumer who has been filibustering the issue is tight with the Russian oligarchs. He and the AJCongress petitioned Bush to import more oil from Russia. Then Schumer attended the opening of the first Russian gas station in America and declared Russian oil a "win-win" for the consumer.

Schumer's buddy Mikhail Khodorkovsky,the former CEO of Yukos, which owned that gas station is now in prison awaiting trial for stealing billions from the Russian people.
some links please, don't just trash CS, show us the proof, or is this all from loony RW rags? or FoxNews, same diff

Anyone doubt if the books of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups were opened up some names from Russian and Gulf States would surface? Anyone doubt crooks such as Marc Rich have an interest in seeing America produces the least oil possible?yeah, I would, so who's paying you? are you an oil worker, lobbyist or RW lunatic? you may not like the E elite, but at least they think of stuff to better the world we live in, as opposed to the B elite, who just want to be pirates, rapists, plunderers, scam artists & con men.
is this the company you want to hang out with?

Well, you do have a great imagination. Have you considered becoming a science fiction writer?

Baron Max
Yes, so who's the visionary on this issue? What alternative does your side offer besides more of the same? clean coal? ...why doesn't the Bush administration even require scrubbers for power plants? the equipment is already available...

I'll tell you what I think,

Because Bush thinks the Earth was given to man by God to do whatever makes us prosperous. And when we turn it into a big pile of shit, then it's RAPTURE TIME!

Well, we need oil ...it's as simple as that. But what I find interesting is that y'all rant n' rave about destroying ANWR, yet you say nothing about the other world oil fields like in Venzuala ...they're destroying great areas of natural habitate.

So, ...what are you going to do about it? Stop using petroleum products? That covers lots of things, not just gasoline. We stop using petroleum products and the nations come to screeching halt.

But see, y'all don't want to discuss that issue ...you want to dream it or fantasize it away with some comment like, "We can develope alternatives." Sure ....when? And will you quite using petroleum products until then??

Baron Max

How many republicans voted nay?


I know of one. Coleman MN. His voting yes would have ensured his looking for a new job next election.

I am not happy about this vote for drilling myself. This area was put aside as a natural area and that was supposed to be a guarentee for as long as the usa existed as a nation (as I understand these things).

It may have been more paletable for me should this have been attached to a real energy plan, but alas, its for instant gratification and alot of money for a few corps.

There is no doubt that khodorkovsky stole billions from the russian people, he used the chance when russia was in transition to buy himself oil feilds and use them for his benifit, not to mention frogulating paper work and taxes. I think making oil personalised was the biggest mistake they made when they turned russia capitolist.

Well, we need oil ...it's as simple as that. But what I find interesting is that y'all rant n' rave about destroying ANWR, yet you say nothing about the other world oil fields like in Venzuala ...they're destroying great areas of natural habitate.

So, ...what are you going to do about it? Stop using petroleum products? That covers lots of things, not just gasoline. We stop using petroleum products and the nations come to screeching halt.

But see, y'all don't want to discuss that issue ...you want to dream it or fantasize it away with some comment like, "We can develope alternatives." Sure ....when? And will you quite using petroleum products until then??

Baron Max
There are already alternatives, and these should be subsidized by the government at the same time petroleum is phased out. Nothing even approaching that is happening. I know we need oil or we starve, that's the reality of it. Do you want your life to depend on a dwindling resource? One that requires ever more protected land to be sacrificed? That is based on the whims and political tides of foriegn countries? That forces us to go to war at times to protect our oil interests?

The economics of scale will apply when more people use things like solar, wind, tide, natural gas, hydrogen, corn/alcohol and geothermal power. I feel that alternatives are being actively suppressed by petroleum corporations, they buy up patents and sit on them. Fuel economy is a joke on some new vehicles where they still get mileage in the teens. Deisel power is big in Europe for cars, why not here? The hybrid vehicle tax break is a start.

A pointless venture, as ANWR is only estimated to have enough oil to supply the US economy for a little less than a year. It's beans.

Now, if we could get some Thermal Depolymerization plants and more nuclear reactors built, we'd need less oil anyway.

But the hippies won't let us have those either. Hooray for progress!

The whole US economy for one year? Use it as a suppliment and you can cut prices by 10% for 10 years.

How would a nuclear reactor power cars and airplanes? most of the oil shipped to the Us goes into powering the mass transport, not to mention being used for military purposes.

(this is excluding plastic, which you think it would be cheeper to recycle.)

The whole US economy for one year? Use it as a suppliment and you can cut prices by 10% for 10 years.

Again, how?

It isn't US oil. It is the oil of multinational oil companies run for profit that sell and trade it on the world market.

It isn't US oil. It is the oil of multinational oil companies run for profit that sell and trade it on the world market.

Well, it's simple supply and demand ...if there's a lot of oil on the market, the price is lower; If there's very little oil, the price is higher. See? Ain't so difficult, it is?

Oh, and by the way, it is US oil and it comes under special rules in the same way as Saudi oil belongs to the Saudis ....it ain't "international" oil until they want to sell it on the open market.

Baron Max

When American companies do make a mess , they clean it up.

Really? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4010511.stm)

There's a bad smell round here...
Dee Cee

Well, it's simple supply and demand ...if there's a lot of oil on the market, the price is lower; If there's very little oil, the price is higher. See? Ain't so difficult, it is?
By your comprehension, you'd think it was.

The statistics keep popping up - 5% of America's oil. That won't make even the slightest dent on the world market. And it won't happen for another ten years.

Oh, and by the way, it is US oil and it comes under special rules in the same way as Saudi oil belongs to the Saudis ....it ain't "international" oil until they want to sell it on the open market.

Baron Max

You're so cute when you are naive.

...- 5% of America's oil. That won't make even the slightest dent on the world market. And it won't happen for another ten years.

In ten years? Yeah, perhaps right when we need it the most, hm? :)

Baron Max

In ten years? Yeah, perhaps right when we need it the most, hm? :)

Baron Max
As will India and China. (need it the most)

Now, if we could get some Thermal Depolymerization plants and more nuclear reactors built, we'd need less oil anyway...

Word up to that, Pennwalt.

Thermal depolymerization works on organic material. Turkey/hog guts, etc. You could take all the watse from all the slaughterhouses and butchers in all of the world and it still wouldn't be a sliver of what we need.